With Gitmo closing, who here wouldn't mind having them imprisoned near your city or in your state ?
apologist, please define "treat them with kid gloves"? NOT torturing them is not treating them with kid gloves, its the law. Providing due process is not treating them with kid gloves, its the law. Not sure what you have against the ACLU, but they stand for up for ALL peoples rights; yours, mine, your neighbor, and even a terrorist SUSPECT.
"I do have a dumb question but do we know where they would be held? It would have to be on a military base correct?"
Not a dumb question at all. It has not been determined yet where they will be held. I think that is why the president gave himself a year to close it down. they need to work out a plan as to how these cases will be processed and adjudicated, and how they do that will probably determine where these guys will go. It don't think they would have to go to a military base, it could be any federal prison. However, leavenworth would be a logical choice, since it is an army base with a maximum security prison. I think the only one the military has.
no, amblessed, I would not have a problem with gitmo detainees being detained near my city. Why would you?
And just so you know, that isn't a jab...it is a punch. Is it because they aren't christian and thus don't deserve rights? or because they aren't American and thus don't deserve rights? or because they aren't caucasian and thus don't deserve rights?
or is it because you have swallowed the former administration's lies that they are all terrorists and thus don't deserve rights?
I have no problem moving them to the federal maximum security facility nearest my home, wherever that is. Why would I, or anyone else for that matter, care? Are they anymore dangerous than the other prisoners being housed there? What would be the alternative? To continue Bush's policy of breaking US and international law by withholding habeus corpus rights to prisoners?
Amblessed, would you have a problem with it? If so, why?
We released this one - before he was released from Guantanamo, a Saudi detainee insisted he had only wanted to help refugees and was not a fighter. Now, as an Al Qaeda field commander sporting a bandolier of bullets, he is threatening the United States and has been hailed by a militant Web site as a veteran guerrilla and “a fomenter of war.” - wonder how many more might be released, only to return to kill Americans - time will tell.
jimahl, you are right I am sure that our justice system can keep them contained on US soil. I just get nervous when people say we should treat them with kid gloves and also worry about the ACLU making an @$$ out of Americans outside the prison wall. I do have a dumb question but do we know where they would be held? It would have to be on a military base correct?
"Even when they defend a man who rapes small boys because he claims its his religous right?"
"Yes you can argue that they are for Americans but I highly doubt that we will see them once the fairness doctrine is put into place. "
Huh? What does one have to do with the other?
"I am sorry but terrorist should not have rights."
How do you know they are terrorists? Our criminal justice system does not allow due process and habeus corpus to be denied to anyone, including SUSPECTED terrorists. George Bush broke both US and international law in detaining these people.
Utopia, If your only source for news was is FIXED News, you would have no real idea what the ACLU is all about. They would have you believe the ACLU unamerican, when the only thing they do is to advocate for peoples whose rights have been violated. Sounds down right commie to me!!!
I agree. What's the big deal with having them imprisoned, and more importantly, tried in my home city or state?
""I am sorry but terrorist should not have rights.""
Why are you so afraid of bringing them to trial? Afraid they'll be found innocent?
Even when they defend a man who rapes small boys because he claims its his religous right? Yes you can argue that they are for Americans but I highly doubt that we will see them once the fairness doctrine is put into place.
sorry amblessed if they felt like jabs. I meant them as love taps.
I simply responded, and then asked a few follow up questions, that I see you have not taken the time to answer yet. Looking forward to when you do.
I don't see them as any greater threat than anyone else accused of a crime - assuming they are eventually accused. I suspect most of them are not terrorists - possibly none of them are.
This member thanks you answering the question and extra !! - I'm confused as to why Advisors and jimahl here lately enjoy jabbing ? - kinda takes the Fun out of Funadvice.
I see the question answered and two people asking for your motivation behind the question. I don't see the jabs.
I'm sorry you're not having, um...fun.
I'm gathering from your tone that you're against the idea, but I'm confused as to why. It's not like they'll be moved into your attic.
"I am sorry but terrorist should not have rights."
Jesus Christ. Yikes.
good answer jimahl. It amazes me that some people don't get it that the ACLU defends everyone.
I am sorry but terrorist should not have rights.